Status Conference 12-2025 Unemployment
- Date
- 2024-12-06
Summary
Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference filed December 18, 2025 as Document 58 in Joshua Abrams v. Division of Unemployment Insurance, et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asks for a status conference on his pending Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment entered when the court dismissed the case on September 2, 2025. The motion states that the dismissal rested mainly on failure to exhaust administrative remedies and argues that a filing denied as moot contained Exhibit B, an agency notice dated March 31, 2023. It also asks whether the court will review a Second Amended Complaint addressing individual-capacity claims against Defendants Barela and Fitzgerald. A certificate of conferral states that defendants' counsel objected on December 17, 2025.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 58 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4 FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DENVER, COLORADO 1 of 4
10:27 am, Dec 18, 2025
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
The United States District Court District of Colorado
901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433
Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams
v.
Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance, et al
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |720-910-4829 Case Number:
P.O. Box 761 Loveland CO 80539 1:24-cv-03390
Division: Courtroom
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff Joshua Abrams, proceeding pro se, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 and the inherent authority of the Court to manage its docket under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(a), for a status conference regarding Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Amend Judgment.
A conference is necessary to address a critical disconnect in the record where controlling legal
authority and dispositive evidence, specifically regarding the futility of administrative remedies,
were "mooted" without review, creating a manifest injustice that the pending Rule 59(e) motion
seeks to correct.
I. BACKGROUND
1. This case, filed on December 6, 2024, alleges systemic constitutional and statutory violations
in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's (CDLE) unemployment insurance
administration, including due process deprivations, ADA/§504 discrimination, and First
Amendment retaliation. The Court dismissed the claims on September 2, 2025, entering
judgment and mooting several pending motions, including Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to
Supplement Complaint. Plaintiff's timely Rule 59(e) motion, filed September 22, 2025, remains
pending, tolling appellate deadlines under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The case has seen several
months of inactivity, partially attributable to the October 1 to November 12, 2025 government
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 58 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4
2 of 4
shutdown, which delayed federal court operations. As a pro se, indigent, and disabled litigant,
Plaintiff faces ongoing irreparable harm, including eviction risk and health deterioration,
justifying urgent clarification.
II. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL PURSUANT TO D.C.COLO.LCIVR 7.1(a)
2. On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff conferred with Defendants' counsel via email regarding this
motion. Defendants objected, stating the dismissal was proper, deficiencies cannot be cured by
amendment, and a conference would not be productive. This conferral was made in good faith,
but the objection underscores the need for judicial clarification.
III. GROUNDS FOR CONFERENCE
3. The Court’s September 2, 2025 Dismissal Order dismissed Plaintiff’s claims primarily for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, in that same Order, the Court denied as
"moot" Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice Against Dismissal and in Support of Emergency
Injunctions (filed on or around August 28, 2025).
That "mooted" filing contained Exhibit B, a CDLE Notice of Reconsideration dated March 31,
2023, stating that Plaintiff’s administrative appeal was "CANCELED" by the agency itself as a
reconsidered decision had been issued. This document is dispositive: it proves that Plaintiff could
not exhaust remedies because the agency actively foreclosed them, creating a procedural loop
that perpetuated the systemic unconstitutional deficiencies and dead ends. By mooting the filing
that contained the proof of exhaustion futility, the Court inadvertently removed evidence that
would have defeated the dismissal argument, resulting in clear legal error and manifest injustice
warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e) (Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th
Cir. 2000) (overlooking record evidence reversible)).
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 58 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4
3 of 4
4. As detailed in Plaintiff’s contemporaneously filed Notice of Supplemental Authority, the
Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Reed, 142 S. Ct. 1234 (2025), prohibits federal courts
from requiring exhaustion of state remedies where the state’s process creates a "procedural
dead-end" or "illusory remedy."
5. The combination of Williams (controlling law) and Exhibit B (record evidence of a canceled
appeal) creates a scenario where dismissal for non-exhaustion is a clear error of law. A status
conference would allow the Court to clarify whether it intends to review this overlooked
evidence and authority as part of the Rule 59(e) reconsideration, or if Plaintiff must proceed to
the Tenth Circuit to address the exclusion of this material, thereby preserving the record for
appellate review.
6. The Dismissal Order dismissed individual capacity claims "with prejudice" based on Qualified
Immunity, citing a failure to plead personal participation. However, Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint (attached to the Rule 59(e) motion) cures this by detailing the specific policy-making
acts of Defendants Barela and Fitzgerald that created the systemic "funnels" blocking Plaintiff’s
rights. A conference is requested to determine if the Court will review the curative amendment,
consistent with the "freely give leave" standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), or if the "with
prejudice" designation stands despite the cured pleadings, to facilitate efficient resolution.
IV. CONCLUSION
The current posture of the case presents a procedural paradox: the case was dismissed for reasons
(exhaustion) that the record evidence (Exhibit B) disproves, but that evidence was "mooted" by
the dismissal itself while ignoring controlling law and valid motions to amend. Plaintiff
respectfully requests a status conference to affirm that this evidence and the controlling Williams
authority are properly before the Court for its Rule 59(e) review.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 58 filed 12/18/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4
4 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________
___________________
Date: 12-17-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & AUTHENTICITY
I certify the filings are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge done in good faith and
under acknowledgement of perjury. & That on 12-17-2025 a true and accurate copy of this filing
were served on Defendants by: E-filed, lauren.davison@coag.gov & Stephen.woolsey@coag.gov
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cod.239393.58.0.pdf
- Size
- 169,458 bytes
- SHA-256
- 19531fc35e892a94269cac1491c7c7dd039164ba18d962a1ee7685f36044a071
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.cod.239393.58.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)